Recruiting
CVWarehouse
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CVWarehouse NV · www.cvwarehouse.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
CVWarehouse at a glance
- Vendor
- CVWarehouse NV
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates CVWarehouse 0/5, the mean of 6 judges. CVWarehouse NV is a recruiting vendor whose public record, captured 13 October 2026, is a single page: a scheduled-maintenance notice confirming an ATS exists, with separate logins for Recruiter, Candidate and HR Partner, and a contact email. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
CVWarehouse NV is a recruiting vendor whose public record, captured 13 October 2026, is a single page: a scheduled-maintenance notice confirming an ATS exists, with separate logins for Recruiter, Candidate and HR Partner, and a contact email. Candidate pipeline draws the most credit — five of six judges score 1 for the confirmed existence and role separation, the HR IT integrator scores 0 — and job distribution sits at 0 except for the data protection officer's 1 for the candidate login, the one trace of a candidate-facing side. Applicant data governance, AI screening control and integrations and handover sit at 0 at both minimum and maximum: judges found no public information on retention and deletion, on whether any AI ranks or parses applicants, or on any API or handover to an HR or payroll system. Sovereignty is where the judges diverge most, from 0 to 2: three credit the Belgian legal form in the vendor's name as a European signal, two hold that no sovereignty attributes are on record, and one places silence above the bottom. We found no public prices.
Speaks for it
- An ATS is confirmed to exist, with separate logins for Recruiter, Candidate and HR Partner
- A candidate login on the captured page gives one trace of a candidate-facing side
- Three judges credit the Belgian legal form in the vendor's name as their European signal on sovereignty
- A published contact email, info@cvwarehouse.com, gives a direct route for documentation requests
Held against it
- We found no public information on pipeline stages per job, scorecards, hiring-manager access or any record of who decided what
- We found no public information on retention deadlines, deletion, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging
- We found no public information on whether any AI ranks, matches or parses applicants, and equally no statement that none is used
- We found no public information on an API, SSO, calendar, e-signature or handover to any HR or payroll system
- No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting, contracting entity and subprocessors are all unstated
Best for
- You are running a first-pass scan and want a named vendor with a published contact email to request documentation directly
- Your shortlist gate at this stage is a confirmed ATS with separate recruiter, candidate and HR-partner logins
- You give weight to the Belgian-form signal in the vendor's name that carried three sovereignty scores to 2
Avoid if
- You must show a works council or data protection officer documented applicant-data governance before signing
- You need to know before purchase whether AI ranks or parses applicants, and whether it can be switched off
- You need hires to move into your HR or payroll system without retyping
- You need to see how vacancies reach candidates — career page, job boards, application form — before committing
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Applicant management & hiring workflow | 0.5 of 5 |
| Multiposting, career page & candidate experience | 0 of 5 |
| Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent | 0 of 5 |
| AI screening transparency & control | 0 of 5 |
| HR handover, integrations & API | 0 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The captured page confirms only that an ATS exists, with separate entrances for recruiters, candidates and HR partners. We found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access, scorecards or any record of who decided what — for sixty hires a year I need a decision I can defend, and there is nothing here to judge it on. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The only public page we could reach is a maintenance notice confirming an ATS exists with recruiter, candidate and HR partner logins; we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, scorecards, interview scheduling or any record of who decided what. A product name and three login roles cannot carry a hiring workflow. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only captured page is a maintenance notice confirming an ATS with recruiter, candidate and HR-partner logins, so the product exists and separates those roles — and there it ends. I found no public information on pipeline stages per job, scorecards, hiring-manager permissions, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what and when. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only captured page confirms an ATS exists and names Recruiter, Candidate and HR Partner roles, and nothing beyond that; we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access limits, structured scorecards, interview scheduling or any record of who decided what. A process I cannot see is a process I cannot co-determine on. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The captured vendor page is a scheduled-maintenance notice that confirms an ATS exists and labels three audiences — Recruiter, Candidate, HR Partner — and nothing more. We found no public information on pipeline stages, hiring-manager access, structured evaluation, scheduling or any record of who decided what, so the hiring workflow cannot be evidenced beyond existence. 1
The Skeptic
The single captured page confirms an ATS with separate recruiter, HR-partner and candidate logins, and nothing more. We found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured evaluation, hiring-manager scoping or any record of who decided what, so a login split is all there is to score. 1
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a vacancy in front of the right people and letting them apply: job-board distribution for the German market, the career page, and an application process that does not lose candidates on a phone.
0 — No career page and no job-board distribution; vacancies are posted by hand elsewhere.
3 — A basic hosted job list and free aggregator feeds, with no named German boards, and an application form that requires an account or a desktop.
5 — A branded career page, multiposting to named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and at least one major German paid board, Google for Jobs markup, and mobile application without an account.
8 — Multiposting with booking and budget tracking per board from inside the system, source attribution per applicant, career page in several languages with an embeddable widget, accessibility stated, and an application form configurable per job.
10 — Distribution is measured, not only broadcast: cost and applicants per channel reported, the career page meets a stated accessibility standard, one-click or CV-parse application on mobile, and candidates can see their own status and withdraw themselves.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The one captured page is a maintenance notice; we found no public information on a career page, multiposting, German boards, or the application form itself. Nothing about distribution is evidenced at all, so the lowest definition is the match. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on a career page, multiposting to German job boards, Google for Jobs markup or a mobile application flow — the captured page holds only role links and a contact email. Nothing in it lets me judge how candidates find or complete an application. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A candidate login on the captured maintenance page is the one trace of a candidate-facing side. I found no public information on a career page, multiposting to German boards, application forms, mobile application, or anything a candidate sees beyond a login button. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on a career page, job-board distribution for the German market, Google for Jobs markup or the application form itself; the captured page offers role logins and an email address. Nothing here shows how a vacancy would reach an applicant at all. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The only captured page is a maintenance notice with a contact email; we found no public information on a career page, job-board distribution, Google for Jobs markup or the application form. Nothing about getting a vacancy in front of candidates is evidenced at any level. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a career page, multiposting, German job boards, application forms or source tracking — the capture is a maintenance notice that says nothing about distribution. 1
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to the data of people who were not hired: automatic deletion on a configurable deadline, talent-pool consent that expires, data-subject requests, and access logging — the criterion the employer is actually liable for.
0 — Nothing stated about retention or deletion; applicant data stays until someone removes it by hand.
3 — Manual deletion and an anonymise button exist, but no automatic deadline, and talent-pool storage has no stated consent step.
5 — Automatic deletion or anonymisation after a configurable period after rejection, talent-pool storage only with recorded consent, and a documented way to answer an access or erasure request.
8 — Retention rules per country or entity, consent with expiry and automated re-consent requests, candidate self-service for their own data, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and permissions a works council can review.
10 — Governance that can be evidenced: deletion runs are logged and reportable, special-category data can be excluded or restricted by field, every export is recorded, and the vendor publishes how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards and tools it syncs with.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
We found no public information on deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging. Retention of rejected applicants is the liability I carry as the employer, and the capture gives me nothing to assess it against. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging. For the criterion the employer is personally liable for, total silence is the whole finding. 1
The Data Protection Officer
On the criterion the employer is personally liable for, the captured pages are silent end to end. I found no public information on retention deadlines after rejection, talent-pool consent, a route for access or erasure requests, or any log of who opened an applicant file. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on automatic deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, handling of access or erasure requests, viewing or export logs, or anything an internal candidate's file might or might not leak into. Retention and deletion are what the employer is liable for, and silence here is the most expensive kind. 1
The HR IT Integrator
Nothing captured says anything about retention deadlines, deletion, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging. With a maintenance page as the entire record, the governance position the employer is liable for is unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on deletion deadlines, anonymisation, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging; nothing captured shows what happens to the data of people who were not hired. For the criterion the employer is liable for, that silence is the score. 1
AI screening transparency & control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether any automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection is disclosed, explained and switchable — recruitment is a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, and an undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI matching or scoring is marketed with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off.
3 — AI features are described as a benefit, with a general assurance that humans decide, but no documentation of inputs, no per-feature switch and no model or provider named.
5 — Each AI feature is described with its purpose and inputs, can be disabled per account, never rejects a candidate without a human action, and the model provider or subprocessor is named.
8 — AI outputs are shown with their reasoning to the recruiter, candidates are informed when AI is used, protected attributes are stated to be excluded, EU processing is available for the AI features, and the vendor publishes its EU AI Act position.
10 — The vendor treats recruitment AI as the high-risk system the law says it is: documentation a works council can base an agreement on, bias testing described and repeated, logs of every AI-assisted decision retained for audit, and every AI feature off by default until the customer enables it.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The vendor makes no statement about AI anywhere in the capture, neither marketing it nor stating its absence. With no public information on whether any ranking or parsing exists, on its inputs or on a per-feature switch, I cannot tell a product without AI from one with undisclosed scoring. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on whether the product ranks, matches or parses applications with AI, and equally no statement that it does not use AI at all. Under the EU AI Act I cannot treat that silence as either a feature list or a clean bill. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages neither market AI screening nor state that the product works without it. I found no public information on any ranking, matching or parsing feature, on its inputs, on the model provider, or on whether it can be switched off — for a co-determination matter of this weight, total silence sits at the bottom. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection, and equally no statement that none is used. I cannot tell my council whether any score sits next to a candidate's name, what it evaluates, or whether it can be switched off — and an answer I cannot get is an answer I must treat as absent. 1
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public information on whether ranking, matching or parsing exists, what it evaluates, where it runs or whether it can be switched off — and equally no statement that the product ships without AI features. There is nothing here a works council or an EU AI Act assessment could review. 1
The Skeptic
The captured material is entirely silent on AI: no feature is named or described, no inputs, no per-feature switch, and no statement that none is used either. Undisclosed in both directions, so I score the bottom rather than assume anything. 1
HR handover, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The hire does not end in the ATS: handover to the HR system and payroll, identity and calendar integration, e-signature for contracts, and an API a team can build on.
0 — No integrations and no API; a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system.
3 — A CSV export and an email integration, with a partner marketplace that names no German HR or payroll systems.
5 — A documented API, calendar and video-interview integration, and a named handover to at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors).
8 — Maintained integrations with several named HR systems carrying the hire's data without retyping, SSO and SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Integration is designed rather than bolted on: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, handover that carries documents and consent status into the HR record, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and the vendor maintaining the German integrations itself.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
We found no public information on handover to any HR or payroll system, on calendar, SSO or e-signature, or on a documented API. I plan my process around what I can see, and this capture shows none of it. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on an API, a handover to any DACH HR system, SSO, e-signature or webhooks. The 'HR Partner' login link is the only adjacent signal, and it tells a buyer nothing about whether a hire's data travels without retyping. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public information on an API, on handover to any HR or payroll system common in DACH or elsewhere, on calendar or identity integration, or on e-signature for offers. On this evidence a hire would have to be retyped. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on integrations, an API, SSO, calendar or e-signature, or handover to any HR or payroll system common in DACH. The 'HR Partner' item on the page is a login role, not a documented interface carrying a hire's data anywhere. 1
The HR IT Integrator
A hire that arrives in the HR system with its documents rather than as a retyped PDF is my core test, and the captured page gives nothing to work with: a maintenance notice, a reference to an ATS and an email address. We found no public information on a documented API, SSO, SCIM, calendar, e-signature, webhooks, or any named HR or payroll system in the DACH market the hire moves into. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on an API, SSO, calendar or e-signature, and no HR, payroll or other system is named as an integration; the capture shows nothing about what happens to a hire after the offer. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where applicant data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are — including the job boards, CV parsers and AI providers the system passes CVs to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories holding the customer's own data, because every record belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and CV parsing or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or CV parsing and AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — parsing, AI, email delivery — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including parsing and AI providers, and a DPA that covers applicant data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI and CV-parsing features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
We found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity, or any subprocessor — and nothing on where CV parsing or AI would run. Because the evidence is simply silent rather than pointing outside the EU, this sits one step above the lowest definition. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The sovereignty record is empty: hosting, subprocessors and the contracting entity are all unstated, and the captured page is a maintenance notice. The vendor's name reads as a Belgian company, but nothing confirms where applicant data is hosted or which parsers, boards or AI providers touch CVs. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The independently sourced record carries no sovereignty attributes at all: hosting location, contracting entity and every subprocessor are unrecorded. For a system holding CVs of people who never chose this vendor, I found no public information placing any part of the chain — storage, parsing, email delivery — in the EU. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor's name carries a Belgian legal form, which is the only European signal I can find; we found no public information on hosting location, contracting entity details, or any subprocessor list including parsing, AI or email delivery. Every applicant file belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, and I cannot tell them where their CV would live or who touches it. 1
The HR IT Integrator
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting, the contracting entity's location, the subprocessor list and any CV-parsing or AI processing locations are all unstated in the captured material. Every record in an ATS belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor, and the chain that would protect them cannot be assessed from what was captured. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor's name, CVWarehouse NV, points to a Belgian or Dutch incorporation, which is the only European signal in the capture. We found no public information on hosting location, infrastructure, subprocessors — including any CV parser or AI provider — or a data-processing agreement covering applicant data. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing model (per employee, per open job, per recruiter seat), job-board posting costs, add-ons for AI, career page or integrations, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (employees, jobs, seats) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (paid job-board postings, AI features, integrations, extra seats) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, job-board posting costs or the booking model stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given company size, number of open roles and recruiter seats, with every add-on, posting package and overage published.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The only pricing information in the capture is a contact email: no tiers, no basis, no minimum term, no add-ons. We found no public prices at all, so an annual cost for a company my size cannot even be sketched from public pages. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on tier prices, the pricing basis, add-ons, job-board posting costs or minimum term — the single captured page is a maintenance notice. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from public pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
I found no public prices of any kind — no tiers, no pricing basis, no add-ons, no minimum term. The only captured page is a maintenance notice offering a contact email, so every figure would be a sales conversation. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public prices, no tiers, no pricing basis and no minimum term; the captured page is a maintenance notice with a contact email. A buyer cannot compute anything, and neither can a works council reviewing what the employer would be signing. 1
The HR IT Integrator
We found no public prices of any kind — no tier, no pricing basis, no add-on, no minimum term. The captured page is a maintenance notice, so the real annual cost is not computable from public pages even in outline. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public prices at all — no tier, no pricing basis, no minimum term, no add-ons. The only cost-adjacent item captured is a contact email, which points to a sales conversation rather than a computable invoice. 1
Questions about CVWarehouse
Is CVWarehouse European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where CVWarehouse is based.
Where does CVWarehouse store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does CVWarehouse have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to CVWarehouse?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Recruitee (3.5/5), softgarden (3/5) and Pinpoint (3/5) highest among the other 29 Recruiting products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Recruitee (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: CVWarehouse alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (cvwarehouse.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.cvwarehouse.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →